RantsCounterRants: A letter to Jan Haugland of Bergen, Norway...

Dear Jan –

Once again, a stimulating piece you've posted on the question of cross-burning as constitutionally-protected speech, thought-provoking.  It compels a thorough comment from me.

I feel I need to remind you the U.S. is still a rather backwards country (note your own comments yesterday on American's religious beliefs).  This country practiced slavery only a scant 139 years ago; our most elderly citizens may remember a time when former slaves lived amongst us or even served their families.  I was born at a time when segregation was widely practiced in the south, a mere generation or two ago.

Until we Americans reach a point in our history where the potential of backsliding against a minority group clears our societal consciousness, threats against minority groups should not be tolerated, treated as hate crimes and not as free speech.  (We do have laws against hate crimes here, BTW.)  Racially-motivated verbal and visual threats are still very likely to become violent action at this point in time in the U.S. 

(Jan, you may simply not ken the relative ease with which such threats become violence here; I cannot find anything that tells me that Norwegians regularly enslaved humans of other ethnic groups in the last thousand years, or that discrimination and genocidal violence against persons of other skin colors was ever common practice.  Correct me if I’m wrong on this historical data.  Perhaps this is why you personally do not see cross burning as anything but free speech.  In your culture, it would be just that.)

Look at the Trent Lott debacle; if Lott chose to burn a cross right now, today, in a public or private venue, what would you make of it as a foreign observer?  Would the American public perceive it as free speech, or a not-so-veiled threat?  Would such an action be ignored by the public, or would it incite violence?  Until Lott’s kind have fully evolved or died out, symbolic gestures associated with hate crimes are NOT acceptable because they are threats.  The burning of crosses, whether in private or public venues, is an implied threat against non-whites (either as individuals or as a group).  There is no specific right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution to threaten other human beings because of their ethnicity; there is no natural human right to do so anywhere in the world.

Another free speech issue under current consideration is the right to moon a public servant in protest in public.  This isn't a hate crime; there's no threat, only an insulting gesture of disrespect and incredibly bad taste bordering on obscenity depending on the method of expression.  Depending on local code, it could be prosecuted as public nudity.  It’s very likely there are no more grounds for prosecuting a mooner than for someone "flipping the bird".  If this had taken place in this country, this might be protected speech because there is no implied threat.

Certainly we should be concerned about overreaction which suppresses speech; your example of NYC residents’ possible reaction to Muslim cleric’s fundamentalist rhetoric of violence is well taken.  For a cleric of ANY faith to say God/Yahweh/Allah/Whatever finds certain behavior punishable is one thing; for a cleric to demand the faithful adherents render the punishment through violence is something else.  It’s a threat against the public, an incitement to violent action which crosses the line of separation between Church and State in this country.  That’s a line which clerics must simply learn to live within, or take their exhortations elsewhere.  It’s one the public must also understand; if there’s no threat, only pure rhetoric, it’s not an issue of public safety.  Live and let live.

Best wishes, my little Norwegian brother,

~Rayne

11:07:36 AM    comment []